Quote:
Originally Posted by egbeachley
You seriously need to read the Blowout posts, look at the before and after pictures, and stop wasting our time. We are way past the “it might not be the same card” stage. There is no doubt.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by perezfan
Absolutely right.... Anyone still taking this tired stance is either blind, unreasonably biased, protecting his "investment", or simply in denial.
It's not just recurring print flaws, as he stated. It's the matching paper fibers and unique characteristics that are 100% impossible to duplicate. Undeniable and indisputable evidence of "before & after" alteration.
TPG and PSA apologists need to find a new argument. Maybe they can dig very deep to find a card or two that they can claim isn't a match. But that does not dispel or diminish the thousands upon thousands that are.
|
I am definitely not "blind, unreasonably biased, or simply in denial". Neither, am I an "apologist" for the TPGs, or anyone else for that matter. I am however, interested in, as I believe everyone is/should be, protecting our "investment"; to do otherwise, in my opinion, is to admit that you are willing to throw away your money. I am not willing to throw away money, as at this point in my life, as a retired, disabled veteran who can't work, I don't have enough to throw away. I am simply a baseball fan who has been collecting baseball cards for 50 years now, going back to when I was 7 years old. It is what keeps me going in this crazy existence.
What I was trying to point out in my earlier post, is that it might be/could be/probably will be, difficult to prove to a court of law, to their legal requirement, that multiple pictures of a (non-serial-numbered) card, do in-fact, show the exact same card. I'm sure the court will require a subject-matter "expert witness" (probably a paper expert), to testify to that fact. I simply wonder who that "expert witness" would be. I guess you can call me a pessimist.
I have read several of the BO Forum posts, and agree that many of them seem to be correct in their assertions. There are also some that seem to be, to me anyway, less certain. I have not read all the posts, as there are too many of them, and I have neither the time, patience, or energy to attempt to do so.
Steve